Talk:Baháʼí Faith and the unity of religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Unity of Religion" should not be confused with "Progressive Revelation".

If by "Unity of Religion" the Baha'is mean the same as "Progressive Revelation" then we are looking much like the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.65.31.9 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles: Bahá'í Faith and [name of religion]

The following articles are still missing:

more...? added articles --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Anyone is welcome to start any of these. Wiki-uk (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bahá'í Faith and Buddhism has been created now. Expansion and/or improvements welcome! Wiki-uk (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í Faith and Christianity I can tell some little about: Bahá'í is a non-issue within Christianity, regarded with polite uninterest or not at all. I don't now why, except possibly that the general rejection of elaborate rule sets (so called pharisaeic teachings) within Christianity also applies to Bahá'í, and so it is regarded quite a different religion, end of story. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info in Unity of religion

The last para boldly claims:

Thus do Bahá'ís resolve many of the conflicts between the differing theologies and cosmologies of the world.

but the previous para only mentions that Bahá'u'lláh claims that

Religious scripture is viewed as being partly literal, partly metaphorical and highly symbolic

and

each word (in scripture) has "70 and 2" meanings

which is nothing new, cf. f.ex. Hadith studies (islamic source criticism science) and Biblical criticism (a flora of methods) where interpretations are systematically explored.

The missing information is How? If it claims that it actually resolves any systemic incompatibilities, we need a sketch of how it is actually done within Bahá'í, or the section is biased, opinionated, and not written according to encyclopedic lines (WP:MOS) required within Wikipedia. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reforms needed

I saw the articles and archived through to compare it to all the other comparative religion articles. All articles comparing Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Theospohy, etc. has similarities, differences, each religions relationship to the other, each religion intereactions with the other, each religions influence on the other, etc. But this article only present a one sided Bahai dominated article unlike all the other religion comparison articles. It's not bad enough to be put up for deletion, but is heavily in need of reform. --70.194.70.155 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons listed above. Now, compare the articles in this series to see the issue. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series articles above. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai Faith and Islam

I'm just curious but why was that page deleted? I clicked on the red link and found out that that page was deleted. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On relativism

Perhaps some exercises on the reconciliation by pov issues could be added - like the Qur'an vs New Testament on issue of Jesus' Crucifixion, where it is examined in this light in scholarly articles. I think Buck did something….--Smkolins (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - not finding Buck yet but Keys to the Proper Understanding of Islam in The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, by Brian Wittmanpublished in Lights of Irfan, 2, pages 135-48, Irfan Colloquia, 2001 might be a start… still looking…. --Smkolins (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Baha’i Approaches to Christianity and Islam: Further Thoughts on Developing an Inter-Religious Dialogue, by Seena Fazel, Baha’i Studies Review, Volume 14 , doi: 10.1386/bsr.14.39/1 --Smkolins (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps mean the following?

Buck, Christopher (1997). Jesus asks all people 'Who do people say that I am?': Replies from several non-Christians. Ottawa Citizen.

Baháʼu'lláh

The article says "Baháʼu'lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, claimed to be the most recent, but not the last, in a series of divine educators which includes the Jewish prophets, Zoroaster, Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Báb."

Yet according to the source, and what I can find of his own writings, Baháʼu'lláh only ever seems to have referred to the prophets of the Abrahamic religions, Zoroaster and the Báb. According to Cole "ʻAbdu'l-Bahá recognized such South Asian figures as Krishna and Buddha, as well." Is it wrong therefore to attribute this claim to Baháʼu'lláh? Xophe84 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, it could be more specifically stated but to be equally precise would be hard to do in summary of other sources, respecting copyright, let alone the readability of compiling the details of various sources into one product. But if you have a constructive contribution to make, then offer it. But it cannot be all the sources' details and specifics. Smkolins (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest fix would be to remove Krishna and Buddha from the passage because the source does not support the assertion that Baháʼu'lláh made any claims regarding either of these figures. Xophe84 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is truly an issue then it seems it should be revised to say Abdu'-Baha extended this that way, which is closer to the source. I didn't think it mattered that much but obviously you do. Between the choice of removing the mention and how it was extended the later is more faithful to the source.Smkolins (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the snark here and in your edit summary.

It matters because it is wrong to say someone claimed something when they didn’t and to misrepresent a source.

Thank you for clarifying the passage. Xophe84 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if the snark didn't 'land' in good humor. You didn't seem to follow an effort towards consensus, but you agree now. Good. Smkolins (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]